At 12:49 PM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
> At 11:33 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
> >
> > > Book: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution
> > >
> > > "A lot of what counts as philosophy," he said, "is explaining and
> > > justifying fundamental human intuitions," including "intuitions
> about
> > > the beautiful and the ugly." The problem has been that philosophy
> > > "doesn't ask where the intuitions come from. ... Human nature is a
> > > traditional philosophic topic, but let's face it, a lot of it is
> > > uninformed armchair speculation by people who just happen to be
> > > geniuses: Hobbes, Mill, Kant.:\"
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.mercurynews.com/books/ci_11690473
> >
> >Hey Marsha,
> >
> >Got it, read it. Interesting if somewhat pedantic. To a Darwinian
> >everything is explained by evolution, just as to an MOQian everything
> is
> >explained by Quality. But, I think anyone interested in the arts will
> find
> >the book worthwhile. The following passage near the end especially
> appealed
> >to me:
> >
> >"The oft-described spirituality of artistic masterpieces, their
> >otherworldly quality . . . involves a feeling -- experienced by atheist
> and
> >believer alike -- that standing before a masterpiece you are in the
> >presence of a power that exceeds anything you can imagine for yourself,
> >something greater than you ever can or will be. The rapture
> masterpieces
> >offer is literally ecstatic -- taking you out of yourself. Theists may
> wish
> >to attribute all this to the power of God, Darwinian humanists to the
> near
> >miraculous power of human genius. Both will approach such works as
> >suppliants: we yield to them, allowing them to take us where they will.
> "
> >
> >This juxtaposition of the humanist with the theist reminded me of
> Pirsig's
> >conclusion in his SODV paper:
> >
> >"As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two
> >different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the
> largest
> >sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and
> sciences
> >because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never
> >really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the
> same
> >human purpose."
> >
> >The same applies to the artists, scientists, theists, humanists and
> >philosophers on this site.
> >
> >Platt
>
>
> Hi Platt,
>
> Are all five "ists" mentioned in the last sentence of equal value to
> you? What if I added communist?
>
>
> Marsha
Hi Marsha,
Political "ists" are definitely not of equal value to me, especially those
like communists who enslave productive individuals to support an all
powerful state.
Platt
Hi Platt,
And I'd just as soon drop theists from the list because of the
stupefying dogma.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
